Re: [PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:11:42 -0400 Bob Copeland wrote: > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > > Use more explicit kernel.h definition > > array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb->s_blocksize); > > > > - if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL) > > + if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX) > > goto out; > > So I agree they are the same, but is there a good reason for the > change? > > Semantically, I think of ~0ULL as "all ones" whereas ULLONG_MAX > as a maximum of a magnitude comparison, which this is not really. Well it was meant to clarify code but in this case it doesn't indeed :) Thanks, Fabian > > -- > Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL
On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:11:42 -0400 Bob Copeland m...@bobcopeland.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: Use more explicit kernel.h definition array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb-s_blocksize); - if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL) + if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX) goto out; So I agree they are the same, but is there a good reason for the change? Semantically, I think of ~0ULL as all ones whereas ULLONG_MAX as a maximum of a magnitude comparison, which this is not really. Well it was meant to clarify code but in this case it doesn't indeed :) Thanks, Fabian -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: > Use more explicit kernel.h definition > array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb->s_blocksize); > > - if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL) > + if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX) > goto out; So I agree they are the same, but is there a good reason for the change? Semantically, I think of ~0ULL as "all ones" whereas ULLONG_MAX as a maximum of a magnitude comparison, which this is not really. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL
Use more explicit kernel.h definition
Cc: Bob Copeland
Cc: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick
---
V2:
Fix Cc list
fs/omfs/inode.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/omfs/inode.c b/fs/omfs/inode.c
index ec58c76..40c0707 100644
--- a/fs/omfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/omfs/inode.c
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static int omfs_get_imap(struct super_block *sb)
bitmap_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(sbi->s_num_blocks, 8);
array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb->s_blocksize);
- if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL)
+ if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX)
goto out;
sbi->s_imap_size = array_size;
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static int omfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
*data, int silent)
goto out_brelse_bh2;
}
- if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino != ~0ULL &&
+ if (sbi->s_bitmap_ino != ULLONG_MAX &&
sbi->s_bitmap_ino > sbi->s_num_blocks) {
printk(KERN_ERR "omfs: free space bitmap location is corrupt "
"(%llx, total blocks %llx)\n",
--
1.8.4.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL
Use more explicit kernel.h definition
Cc: Bob Copeland m...@bobcopeland.com
Cc: Andrew Morton a...@linux-foundation.org
Signed-off-by: Fabian Frederick f...@skynet.be
---
V2:
Fix Cc list
fs/omfs/inode.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/omfs/inode.c b/fs/omfs/inode.c
index ec58c76..40c0707 100644
--- a/fs/omfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/omfs/inode.c
@@ -317,7 +317,7 @@ static int omfs_get_imap(struct super_block *sb)
bitmap_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(sbi-s_num_blocks, 8);
array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb-s_blocksize);
- if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL)
+ if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX)
goto out;
sbi-s_imap_size = array_size;
@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ static int omfs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
*data, int silent)
goto out_brelse_bh2;
}
- if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino != ~0ULL
+ if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino != ULLONG_MAX
sbi-s_bitmap_ino sbi-s_num_blocks) {
printk(KERN_ERR omfs: free space bitmap location is corrupt
(%llx, total blocks %llx)\n,
--
1.8.4.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH V2] fs/omfs/inode.c: use ULLONG_MAX instead of ~0ULL
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Fabian Frederick wrote: Use more explicit kernel.h definition array_size = DIV_ROUND_UP(bitmap_size, sb-s_blocksize); - if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino == ~0ULL) + if (sbi-s_bitmap_ino == ULLONG_MAX) goto out; So I agree they are the same, but is there a good reason for the change? Semantically, I think of ~0ULL as all ones whereas ULLONG_MAX as a maximum of a magnitude comparison, which this is not really. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
